Allowed

Namit Jain v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2022BAIL/21376/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the appellant, Namit Jain, in an appeal against bail rejection for alleged accidental discharge of a pistol causing injury during a money dispute, noting a lengthy trial ahead.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding absence, witness tampering, and appearance for trial proceedings.

Namit Jain Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

RESERVED On 18.8.2022 DELIVERED ON 25.8.2022

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21376 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Namit Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohd. Fazal,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Lochan Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Imran Ullah, and Shri Syed Mohd. Fazal, learned counsels for the applicant; Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Shri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the informant and learned A.G.A.for State.

¶6

There is allegation in the First Information Report that informant was called by the sister-in-law of informant, Shweta Sahgal on phone to the shop of the applicant. When she reached there in the shop the applicant along with Reema, co-accused, Sumit Jain, Niyati Jain and 3-4 persons were present there. When the informant reached there her sister-in-law demanded money from the applicant which he had taken from her on loan. Applicant is alleged to have started abusing sister-inlaw of the informant. The co-accused, Niyati Jain, caught hold of Reema from behind.The applicant pointed pistol towards her and when her sister-in-law resisted he fired on her head.Thereafter he tried to fire on Reema, who was held by co-accused, Niyati Jain. She freed herself and ran away.The applicant is alleged to have chased her with his gun.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of accidental firing .Applicant had no intention

¶8

1 of 6

¶9

to cause gun shot injury. He took out his gun only to scare away the informant and other ladies and in scuffle which took place between them and applicant, firing was suddenly made which pierced through the elbow of the applicant and hit the right side of neck and right eyelobe of the injured. There is wounds of entry and exit on left elbow of the injured which was incidently caused. Only one gunshot was fired as clear from the memo of recovery prepared by the investigating officer dated 11.3.2022.Applicant has no criminal history to his credit.The brother of the applicant ,namely, Ramit Jain and his wife and co-accused, Niyati Jain, have already been enlarged on bail by court below in April 2022 but the bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below hence he is before this court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the injured , the first informant and Smt. Reema came alongwith 4 to 5 unidentified men at the shop of the applicant where the applicant was all alone and further the injured and Smt. Reema instructed the unidentified 4-5 men to stand outside the shop, so that no one could enter the shop and later on, the brother of the applicant Ramit Jain and his sister in law(Bhabhi), Smt. Niyati Jain, came to the shop after 15 minutes. As soon as the elder brother of applicant, Ramit jain and his sisterin-law, Smt. Niyati Jain, came in the shop of the applicant the injured alongwith the first informant and Smt. Reema started assaulting the applicant. The elder brother of applicant and his sister-in-law, Smt.Niyati Jain, tried to

¶11

2 of 6

¶12

intervene and calm them down. The three unidentified men tried to overpower the elder brother of applicant, Ramit Jain and his bhabhi, Smt. Niyati jain. Seeing the unwarranted situation and smelling of some mishappening where 3-4 unidentified men of criminal nature, who had surrounded the shop of the applicant, the applicant tried to disperse the aggressors by trying to fire in air, but the bullet got struck in the pistol and then the aggressors again started assaulting and overpowering the applicant. During the commotion the struck up bullet got accidentally fired, which hit the neck of the injured after piercing the left elbow of the applicant.

¶13

At no point of time, the applicant held the head of the victim and aimed and fired over her. In fact it can be verified from the CCTV footages that the applicant tried to fire in air which stuck in the pistol.

¶14

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that victim demanded the money given by her to the applicant and he abused the victim. When co-accused, Nityati Jain, caught Smt. Reema from back side, first informant objected and then applicant on the exhortation of Ramit Jain caught head of the victim and fired on her. Since applicant was holding her head gunshot hit his elbow. It was not an accidental firing made with no intention to kill. Rather by holding neck of victim from back side attempt was made on her life . After twenty days of the incident an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.c. has been filed from the applicant's side to make out a cross

¶15

3 of 6

¶16

case. Applicant has criminal history of one case under section 406 I,P.C. P.S. Hahras District Hathras.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has also filed supplementary counter affidavit brining on record the certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act regarding CCTV footage collected and pen drive of the incident.

¶18

After considering the rival contentions, this court finds that there was dispute regarding money between the parties and the informant has admitted that she along with another lady went to the shop of the applicant where verbal altercation took place and it appears that in the heat of moment firing was made by the applicant which resulted in injury to the victim. There is nothing on record to indicate that fact after submission of the charge sheet on 2.5.2022,the trial has commenced .There are nine witnesses in the charge sheet submitted against the applicant and trial will take time.

¶19

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶20

4 of 6

¶21

Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶22

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶23

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶24

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶25

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶26

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶27

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of

¶28

5 of 6

¶29

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶31

Order Date :- 25.8.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶32

6 of 6

¶33

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.25 11:24:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Namit Jain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namit Jain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Verma Vs Union of India

Rajkishore Dwivedi Vs State of Up through Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow

Mohit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home